[rfc-i] What the text version is used for (was Re: The <tt> train wreck)
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Sun Aug 22 13:36:07 PDT 2021
On 23-Aug-21 07:39, tom petch wrote:
> On 21/08/2021 22:33, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On 22-Aug-21 05:55, Robert Sparks wrote:
>> It's easy enough to cite details by section number or by URL
>> (even figures, e.g. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8989#venn1).
>> So losing page numbers, a feature of .txt that I've often seen
>> mentioned, seems unimportant. This applies to drafts as much
>> as to RFCs.
> May be but when the section spans what would be 50 pages were there to
> be pages, then I find it somewhat difficult, especially when the same
> text e.g. 'leaf name', appears in multiple places. I refer, of course,
> to YANG modules. Perhaps YANG version 2.1 will introduce the concept of
Shouldn't we be handling YANG modules differently, i.e. using some
system for handling diffs and issues in code? Handling them as if
they are English text make no sense.
> Tom Petch
>> The only use I have made of .txt on recent drafts is to run rfcdiff.
>> IMHO, rfcdiff is an essential tool for document development.
>> I can't see anything else that amounts to a need.
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest